Today we will continue reading the Rev. Louis de Boer's commentary on Esther, Chapter 5, Genealogical Questions, and Chapter 6, Byzantine Politics. Chapter 5, Genealogical Questions. Reading Esther 2, verse 5. Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite. Who was Mordecai? What can we learn from this genealogy of his? One thing that we can learn about is the extent of God's grace. We are told that Mordecai was a Benjamite, that he was from a tribe that had been slated for destruction. He was from a tribe that was almost annihilated for their reprobate behavior and their refusal to repent, and except for unusual measures taken by the other tribes to secure wives for the remnant of Benjamin, they would have become extinct. Yet in spite of Benjamin's iniquity that nearly led to their extinction, we see God bringing much good out of Benjamin. First of all, the tribe of Benjamin produced Saul, Israel's first king. Benjamin also produced the great apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus and of Benjamite, to whom we as Gentile believers are all indebted. And here we learn that Benjamin produced Mordecai and Esther, his father's brother's daughter, and therefore also of the tribe of Benjamin, through whom the nation of Judah, already dispersed among the Gentiles, was saved from extinction. We see poetic irony here. The other tribes, by their compassion, saved Benjamin from extinction, and centuries later Benjamin saved them from extinction. What else can we learn from this genealogy of Mordecai? Who were these ancestors of his that are listed here? Were they simply the father, grandfather, and the great-grandfather of Mordecai? Were they unknown personages of whom we know little and nothing else? Were they simply unknown, nondescript people who went into captivity as opposed to Daniel, a prince of the royal house of Judah, or Ezekiel, a prince and a prophet? Were they just people of no importance? Were they simply people that would never have been recorded in the pages of sacred history except for their famous progeny, Mordecai and Esther? This is certainly one possibility. and if so we can see the marvelous ways of God. He takes the humble from the dust and raises them up to sit with the princes of the land as he took David from the sheepfold and made him captain over the Lord's heritage. So he takes these simple unknown people and makes them great in Israel. He raises them up to great power and prestige in this life and sees that their names will never be forgotten as long as the righteous read the Word of God. In this we see the greatness and goodness of God. As the psalmist says, Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth? He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill, that he may set him with princes, even with the princes of his people." Psalm 113 verses 5 through 8. Of course there is one other possibility. That is that these personages are actually well-known. After all, why would the writer list totally unknown people as Mordecai's ancestors? To what purpose would he list people whose names would mean nothing, even to the readers of that day? Could it be possible that these are actually not the direct forebearers of Mordecai? Son does not necessarily mean son in the scripture, but can mean grandson, or great-grandson, etc. Could it be that these are actually just a few famous ancestors whom the writer considered worthy of note? Now it is true that the most direct and most logical meaning of the text is that these were the immediate forebearers of Mordecai. But there is a possibility that it is not so, and because some commentators, including Kyle, the Jewish Targums, etc., take the position that these are well-known ancestors of Mordecai. I want to at least explore the ramifications of that interpretation. Who is Jeor? We really do not know. Jeor means he enlightens. There are three Jeors recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. The first is Jeor, the son of Sigub, who played a prominent part in the conquest of the Transjordan in the days of Moses. The second Jeor is a Gileadite who lived in the days of the Judges and judged Israel for 22 years. He is the one with the 30 sons who all rode on donkeys. The third Jeor, the one we are interested in, is either the father or a recent remote ancestor of Mordecai? More than that we do not know. Then who is Shimei? If he is a better known, but more remote ancestor of Mordecai, then the only plausible answer is that he is Shimei, the son of Gera. He is the Benjamite who cursed David when he fled before Absalon. So say the Jewish Targums, although they are hardly a reliable source with their abundance of fanciful tales. And finally, who is Kish? Is he the famous Benjamite who was the father of Israel's first king? Again, this is the most plausible candidate, and he is the only famous Benjamite of that name. If all these identifications are correct, We see a parallel here with the genealogy of Christ in Matthew 1. That genealogy generally lists only the male ancestors, but three times it goes out of the way to list women in the genealogy, and remarkably all three women noted are ones that the genealogists of a famous person would prefer to exclude. First of all there is Rahab, the Canaanite, an innkeeper in a culture where that profession was equated with harlotry. Then there is Ruth the Moabitess, and a foreigner, also from a despised race, a race born of the incest of Lot with his daughters. What a contrast with the race of Israel born of the supernatural conception of Isaac in Sarah's womb in her extreme old age. And finally there is Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the adulteress who married her husband's murderer. Is the writer of the book of Esther trying to make the same point? Is he linking Mordecai with some of Israel's more despised personages? Is the writer stating that Mordecai descended from the reprobate Shimei, who cursed the Lord's If so, we have a very interesting contrast. Shimei curses David, the Lord's anointed, and prays for his death when he is under threat of assassination by his son Absalom. At the Restoration Solomon places Shimei under house arrest and finally has him executed as an oath breaker. Mordecai faithfully serves the Lord's anointed the powers that are ordained of God, Romans 13, 1, Ahasuerus, and saves his life in the matter of the conspiracy of Bigfin and Tiresh, when he was threatened with assassination. Mordecai ends his days in a position of great authority and respect, and after death is highly beloved and remembered by his people. Was the writer trying to bring out this contrast? Was he saying that the stain of Shimei put on the tribe of Benjamin has been erased by a greater son of Benjamin, Mordecai? And what of Kish, the father of Saul? What can his ancestry to Mordecai teach us? A lot, actually, for here we see an even greater contrast. On the one hand, we have Saul, the disobedient king of Israel, who intruded into the priesthood, and Saul, the apostate king of Israel, who consulted with the witch of Endor, and died by his own hand, and Saul, who spared Agag, the cursed king of the Amalekites. Amalek had attacked Israel when they were coming out of Egypt. This was the battle that hung in the balance. and was decided in Israel's favor by Moses' prayer and the intercession that long day when Aaron and Hur held up his arms unto the Almighty, the Lord of hosts. God's response to Amalek's unbrotherly conduct was to declare that he would have war with Amalek forever. And centuries later, the fulfillment of that vow, God gave Saul the commission to go and utterly destroy Amalek. He was to leave nothing alive of man or beast. But Saul failed to obey, and spared not only the best of the flocks, but also Agag, their king. Now, centuries later, comes Haman the Agagite of the royal house of Amalek. and in all likelihood a descendant of Agag that Saul spared. And this man seeks to do to Israel what Saul was commanded to do to Amalek, annihilate them completely. But God raises up a greater son of Saul, Mordecai, and Mordecai is used of God to foil the plot to destroy the Jews, and he is instrumental in the death of Haman and his seed. Mordecai accomplishes what Saul failed to do, the destruction of Amalek's royal seed. Was the writer aware of these interesting parallels? It would certainly explain a lot. It would explain why Mordecai's less than illustrious ancestors are specifically identified. This was done not to embarrass Mordecai, but to exalt him by comparison. This is another reason to believe that Mordecai did not himself author this book. We see how circumspectly the authors of the gospel keep a low profile and never exalt themselves. John never refers to himself by name, but addresses himself as the apostle that Jesus loved. The inspired writer must have known Mordecai and received from him his family history, but the Holy Spirit does not cause men to exalt themselves. Paul, under the guidance of the Spirit, can only call himself the chief of sinners. Chapter 6, Byzantine Politics, and we'll read Esther chapter 2, verses 21 through 23. In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king's gate, two of the king's chamberlains, Bigthan and Tiresh, of those which kept the door, were wroth and sought to lay hand on the king Ahasuerus. And the thing was known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen. and Esther certified the king thereof in Mordecai's name. And when inquisition was made of the matter, it was found out, therefore they were both hanged on a tree, and it was written in the book of the Chronicles before the king. In this passage we read about a conspiracy in the palace of Ahasuerus. While plots and schemes are daily occurrences, in every nation's capital. This one is extraordinary. It is an assassination plot and therefore logically involves a coup d'etat. While this may be unusual in the politics of the West, the United States has a presidential assassination about twice per century, which far exceeds the rate of such occurrences in Europe. This was actually quite typical of the Oriental politics of the day. Even Israel, the theocratic state endowed with a special revelation of God's law, was not immune to this type of disorder. When Saul discovered that David had become the Lord's anointed, he made persistent attempts to assassinate him. Later Asalon sought to assassinate his father David and seize the throne. And at David's death another son, Adonijah, with the aid of the high priest Abiathar and the army commander Joab, attempted a coup d'etat to seize the throne. A coup d'etat that if it had succeeded would probably have required the assassination of Solomon. The northern kingdom, Israel, had a major problem with political instability due to the incessant revolts and assassinations generally by the army commanders. And it only gets worse when one examines the histories of the pagan oriental nations of antiquity. The old Assyrian kingdom once had six usurpers seize the throne in succession, all in one year. Sheneqerib, the king of Assyria who devastated Judah, and from whom Hezekiah was miraculously delivered when the angel of the Lord slew 185,000 Assyrian soldiers overnight, returned home only to be assassinated by one of his own sons. This was typical. In the short history of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Nebuchadnezzar's son was assassinated and replaced by his, Nebuchadnezzar's, son-in-law, and in turn his son was deposed in another palace coup. Later on, the Roman Empire treated us to more of the same spectacle. Coups led by the Praetorian Guard became the norm. But after the division of the empire, the eastern half became notorious for the politics of deceit. Countless plots and counter plots and conspiracies within conspiracies made such a convoluted web that there was a name given to it, Byzantine politics. The writer of Esther gives us a glimpse into these matters, as he relates some details of the conspiracy of these two eunuchs. This was probably only one of many such plots against the life of the Hasheurus. Eventually one would succeed. He would be assassinated in his bedchamber, or poisoned, accounts vary, in 465 BC. In the struggle for this succession, his eldest son would be assassinated by his younger brother, Artaxerxes, who then succeeded to the throne. Such was life and death in the palaces of the Orient. The writer, as is his custom, tells us when the events he is about to relate took place. They took place after Mordecai had been elevated to a position of authority so that he sat in the king's gate. This is not just a piece of information that assists in placing these events chronologically, but has a bearing on the development of these events as they unfold. Next the writer introduces two of the king's chamberlains, or as they are called in the Hebrew text, eunuchs. Bigthan in Persian means a gift of fortune, but considering the type of fortune he wanted to bestow on Ahasuerus, only the king's enemies could find any comfort in that ironic name. Tiresh, the name of the other eunuch, means severe. Just how severe he could be, especially when offended, the king never suspected. We are told that the position of these eunuchs was that they were of those who kept the door. The word kept, shamar, in the Hebrew, which has the root meaning of to hedge about, and generally means to guard or to protect. The word for door is kaf, which has the root meaning of contain, and can mean vestibule, threshold, gate, or door. Kyle calls them threshold keepers and the inner linear says that they were of those guarding the door. It seems unlikely that the eunuchs would be soldiers and form the royal bodyguard. Instead their function probably was to control access to the king. These are very powerful and influential positions. He who controls access to the king and thus also controls the flow of information to the king, can exert great influence on the king's actions and decisions. They can peddle this influence and be involved in all manner of conspiracies to manipulate the king, defraud his treasuries, appoint their candidates to various offices, etc. If they are keepers of the vestibule, controlling who has audiences with the king. They are far more influential and powerful than mere bodyguards. Next we are informed that these eunuchs, these keepers of the threshold, these guardians of the throne room, were angry. We are not told the cause of their inordinate anger. All we are told is that it was a murderous anger that caused them to plot to lay violent hands on the king. Since halfway measures are fatal in such endeavors, the only logical conclusion is that they were plotting an assassination, the routine expedient in Oriental politics. The writer gives us no clue as to the motivation for this plot. We can only guess The only guess that I have encountered in my studies is that these eunuchs were partisans of Vashti and were about to be deposed. This is of course sheer conjecture, and coming four years after Vashti's deposition seems somewhat unlikely. It is of course possible that in the preparations for the Grecian campaign they were left in place, and now that the king has returned, and Esther has been crowned, they are being removed. Whatever the offense was, real or imagined, they are about to settle it in blood. The writer now comes to his main point. This conspiracy becomes known to Mordecai, who communicates this information to Esther, who warns the king. The question of course remains, how did Mordecai obtain this information? Again, we can only guess and are left to the speculations and assertions of commentators and historians. The most probable answer has been ventured by Josephus. He states that one of the eunuchs had a servant named Barnabasus, a Jew who knew the plot and told Mordecai. We logically ask, why should he tell Mordecai? Mordecai was still keeping his and Esther's racial identity a secret at the time. Of course, his Jewish identity may have been known to other Jews, and Barnabas would be more likely to inform a fellow Jew who sat in the king's gate. After all, what he was doing was loyal but dangerous. The eunuchs controlled access to the king, and a Hasheurist would never grant an audience to a lowly Jewish servant, probably a slave anyway. And to inform through the wrong channels, or to inform and not be believed, would mean instant death at the hands of the conspirators. Mordecai, a highly placed Jew, would have seemed a safe choice for someone with Barnabas's dilemma. At any rate, in God's providence, Mordecai and Esther are enabled to warn Ahasuerus of the plot against his life. Ahasuerus apparently took these threats seriously. He probably had to in order to survive. He promptly investigates the matter and the conspirators are executed. The Hebrew word for tree is etz, which can also mean timber. One would not think that they were hung on a gallows as some seem to believe. They were probably executed in another way, and then their dead bodies were not granted a decent burial. Instead they were hung out in view as a mark of shame and contempt. This would have been done on a tree, or more likely the bodies were nailed to a stake in the public square in a kind of crucifixion after the fact. This procedure is an ancient one and is a long-lasting custom that has survived until recent times. It is even referred to in the Law of Moses, Deuteronomy 21, 22, and 23. If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. For he that is hanged is accursed of God. That thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." This procedure is as noted, the man is executed and then his body is displayed as a mark of contempt on the accursed tree. Christ suffered this curse for us, as Paul says, Galatians 3.13, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree. As late as Tudor England, and even in Stuart times, traitors and other criminals were beheaded and their bodies were hung from the Tower of London in a public display, and their heads impaled on the battlements, and this is probably what these traitors received at the hand of the Hasheuris. The final important piece of information that the writer includes in this tale of conspiracy is that the king caused the particulars of this episode to be recorded in the official chronicles of the kings of Persia. The eunuch's infamy and the loyal service of Mordecai and Esther are now a matter of public record. Unfortunately, these records are lost to us, for neither historian nor archaeologist have been able to discover them. but they lasted long enough to serve God's purposes. They will play an important part as the story of Esther unfolds. So ends the reading of chapters 5 and 6 of the book of Esther by Reverend Louis DeBoer. Amen.